This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CN0097
Case C-97/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v ET
Case C-97/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v ET
Case C-97/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v ET
OJ C 182, 28.5.2018, p. 7–8
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
28.5.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 182/7 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v ET
(Case C-97/18)
(2018/C 182/06)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, sitting in Leeuwarden
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie
Defendant: ET
Questions referred
|
1. |
Can Article 12(1) of Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA (1) be interpreted as meaning that, when a confiscation order transferred by an issuing State is executed in the Netherlands, a term of imprisonment pending payment as referred to in Article 577c of the Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure may be applied, having regard to, inter alia, the decision of the Hoge Raad of 20 December 2011 (2) to the effect that a term of imprisonment pending payment must be deemed to be a penalty within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the ECHR? |
|
2. |
Does it make any difference to the possibility of applying a term of imprisonment pending payment whether the law of the issuing State also makes provision for the possibility of applying a term of imprisonment pending payment? |
(1) Council Framework Decision of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders (OJ 2006 L 328, p. 59).
(2) NL:HR:2011:BP9449.